View Single Post
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 30, 2012, 11:45pm
MrUmpire MrUmpire is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NY state
Posts: 1,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by tankmjg24 View Post
My interpretation of the rule is that either no mitt (who in their right mind would do this) or a catcher's mitt or first baseman's mitt has to be used. The strict reading of the rule says "may" and "mitt". OBR Rule 1.12 states:

The catcher may wear a leather mitt...
And that wording is important, given that 1.13 states that a first baseman may wear a glove or mitt......

If the rulesmakers wanted to allow catchers to wear a mitt when they changed the rule in 1965, they would have used appropriate wording.
Reply With Quote